An employee in a
casework role was reduced by two classification levels for unsatisfactory
performance. His manager was concerned about the employee's analytical skills as demonstrated
in the quality of his written reports and his capacity to organise and progress
his caseload.

The employee argued that both
the managing underperformance process and its outcome were unfair. In
particular, the employee was concerned about the behaviour and judgements of
his supervisor. His supervisor managed the underperformance process, defined
the performance measures, provided feedback and assessed the standard of his
performance. On review, the employee sought to have the
reduction in classification overturned.

The
Merit Protection Commissioner noted that there was evidence of performance
problems for at least two years before action was taken to manage the
employee's underperformance. Although the employee was rated as satisfactory in
previous performance cycles, his supervisor commented on the need for the
employee to improve his technical skills, accuracy and written communication,
to increase his influence on the outcomes of the section. The employee did not
recognise that the written feedback pointed to substantive concerns, including
because he was subsequently offered higher duties. The Merit Protection
Commissioner accepted evidence that, by the time the managing underperformance
process was initiated, the employee had a backlog of cases and his supervisor
was doing a substantial amount of work checking and rewriting the employee's
reports so that they achieved the necessary outcomes.

The
agency had a two stage process for managing underperformance. The first stage
involved providing the employee with support and guidance in meeting
performance expectations. The second stage was an assessment process. The
employee's supervisor provided the support in the first stage and conducted the
assessment in the second stage. The employee also had access to an external
mentor during both stages.

The
employee was concerned that the process was unfair and that his supervisor was
the 'sole arbiter' of his performance. He was upset by the unrelenting nature
of his supervisor's criticism of his performance, describing it as negative and
condescending. The employee found the process demoralising because he felt that
whatever he did to improve his performance it was never enough.

The
Merit Protection Commissioner noted that it was not uncommon for employees to
feel unfairly targeted when managed for underperformance and that even a
well-conducted process can be upsetting and affect an employee's self esteem.
It is also not unusual for employees to attribute this to personal animosity on
the manager's part. The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that the supervisor
presented credibly as a conscientious and concerned manager and there was no
evidence to suggest her views of the employee's performance were influenced by
personal animosity.

The
employee was also concerned about the lack of support he received from his
supervisor during the final stage of the managing underperformance process. The
Merit Protection Commissioner noted that the supervisor's role changed from a
manager/coach to a manager/assessor during the final stage. In the final stage,
the supervisor needed to judge what the employee could do without intensive
support and with just the usual managerial direction. For example, the Merit
Protection Commissioner considered it was unreasonable to expect the supervisor
to redraft the employee's reports to assist him to reach the appropriate
standard.